namnam-skills 1.0.3 → 1.0.4

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-12497.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+# django__django-12497
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+--- a/django/db/models/fields/related.py
++++ b/django/db/models/fields/related.py
+@@ -1248,8 +1248,8 @@ class ManyToManyField(RelatedField):
+                             self.remote_field.through._meta.object_name,
+                         ),
+                         hint=(
+-                            'If you want to create a recursive relationship, '
+-                            'use ForeignKey("%s", symmetrical=False, through="%s").'
++                            'If you want to create a recursive relationship, '
++                            'use ManyToManyField("%s", through="%s").'
+                         ) % (
+                             RECURSIVE_RELATIONSHIP_CONSTANT,
+                             self.remote_field.through._meta.object_name,

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-12589.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+# django__django-12589
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+Based on the architect's analysis and the issue description, I can generate the patch. The issue is in the `set_group_by` method in `django/db/models/sql/query.py` where the alias is used in GROUP BY without checking for column name collisions.
+
+--- a/django/db/models/sql/query.py
++++ b/django/db/models/sql/query.py
+@@ -1940,6 +1940,20 @@ class Query(BaseExpression):
+                 # already part of the select clause.
+                 continue
+         for alias, annotation in self.annotation_select.items():
+-            cols = annotation.get_group_by_cols(alias=alias)
++            # Check if the alias collides with any column name in joined tables.
++            # If so, we need to use the full expression instead of the alias
++            # to avoid ambiguous column reference errors in the GROUP BY clause.
++            col_alias = alias
++            for table_alias, table in self.alias_map.items():
++                if hasattr(table, 'table_name'):
++                    # Check if any column in this table has the same name as our alias
++                    from django.db import connection
++                    table_info = connection.introspection.get_table_description(
++                        connection.cursor(), table.table_name
++                    )
++                    if any(col.name == alias for col in table_info):
++                        col_alias = None
++                        break
++            cols = annotation.get_group_by_cols(alias=col_alias)
+             group_by.extend(cols)
+         self.group_by = tuple(group_by)
+
+Wait, this approach using introspection at query time is too expensive. Let me reconsider with a simpler approach that checks column references in the query itself:
+
+--- a/django/db/models/sql/query.py
++++ b/django/db/models/sql/query.py
+@@ -1940,7 +1940,22 @@ class Query(BaseExpression):
+                 # already part of the select clause.
+                 continue
+         for alias, annotation in self.annotation_select.items():
+-            cols = annotation.get_group_by_cols(alias=alias)
++            # Check if the alias collides with any column name in joined tables.
++            # If so, we need to use the full expression instead of the alias
++            # to avoid ambiguous column reference errors in the GROUP BY clause.
++            col_alias = alias
++            for join in self.alias_map.values():
++                if hasattr(join, 'join_cols'):
++                    # Check join columns for name collision
++                    for lhs_col, rhs_col in join.join_cols:
++                        if lhs_col == alias or rhs_col == alias:
++                            col_alias = None
++                            break
++                if col_alias is None:
++                    break
++            cols = annotation.get_group_by_cols(alias=col_alias)
+             group_by.extend(cols)
+         self.group_by = tuple(group_by)

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-12700.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+# django__django-12700
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+--- a/django/views/debug.py
++++ b/django/views/debug.py
+@@ -83,18 +83,25 @@ class SafeExceptionReporterFilter:
+         """
+         Cleanse an individual setting key/value of sensitive content. If the
+         value is a dictionary, recursively cleanse the keys in that dictionary.
+         """
+         try:
+             if self.hidden_settings.search(key):
+                 cleansed = self.cleansed_substitute
+             elif isinstance(value, dict):
+                 cleansed = {k: self.cleanse_setting(k, v) for k, v in value.items()}
++            elif isinstance(value, list):
++                cleansed = [self.cleanse_setting('', v) for v in value]
++            elif isinstance(value, tuple):
++                cleansed = tuple(self.cleanse_setting('', v) for v in value)
+             else:
+                 cleansed = value
+         except TypeError:
+             # If the key isn't regex-able, just return as-is.
+             cleansed = value
+ 
+         if callable(googletag_cleansed):
+             cleansed = cleansed()

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-12708.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+# django__django-12708
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+Based on the issue description and the architect's analysis, I need to generate a patch for the Django `_delete_composed_index()` method. The bug is that when deleting an `index_together`, the method finds both the unique constraint and the index constraint because they share the same columns. The fix needs to filter by constraint type.
+
+Here's the patch:
+
+```
+--- a/django/db/backends/base/schema.py
++++ b/django/db/backends/base/schema.py
+@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ class BaseDatabaseSchemaEditor:
+         self.execute(self._delete_constraint_sql(self.sql_delete_pk, model, pk_names[0]))
+         return True
+ 
+-    def _delete_composed_index(self, model, fields, constraint_kwargs, sql):
++    def _delete_composed_index(self, model, fields, constraint_kwargs, sql, exclude_unique=False):
+         columns = [model._meta.get_field(field).column for field in fields]
+         constraint_names = self._constraint_names(model, columns, **constraint_kwargs)
+         if len(constraint_names) != 1:
+@@ -375,7 +375,14 @@ class BaseDatabaseSchemaEditor:
+     def alter_index_together(self, model, old_index_together, new_index_together):
+         olds = {tuple(fields) for fields in old_index_together}
+         news = {tuple(fields) for fields in new_index_together}
+-        # Deleted indexes
++        # Deleted indexes. When removing an index, exclude unique constraints
++        # from consideration since the same columns might have both
++        # index_together and unique_together defined.
+         for fields in olds.difference(news):
+-            self._delete_composed_index(model, fields, {'index': True}, self.sql_delete_index)
++            self._delete_composed_index(
++                model,
++                fields,
++                {'index': True, 'unique': False},
++                self.sql_delete_index,
++            )
+         # Created indexes
+         for fields in news.difference(olds):
+             self._create_index(model, fields, suffix='_idx')
+```
+
+Wait, let me reconsider. The issue is in `_constraint_names` which needs to filter properly. Let me provide a more targeted fix based on the actual Django codebase structure:
+
+--- a/django/db/backends/base/schema.py
++++ b/django/db/backends/base/schema.py
+@@ -375,8 +375,12 @@ class BaseDatabaseSchemaEditor:
+     def alter_index_together(self, model, old_index_together, new_index_together):
+         olds = {tuple(fields) for fields in old_index_together}
+         news = {tuple(fields) for fields in new_index_together}
+-        # Deleted indexes
++        # Deleted indexes. When removing an index, exclude unique constraints
++        # from consideration since the same columns might have both
++        # index_together and unique_together defined.
+         for fields in olds.difference(news):
+-            self._delete_composed_index(model, fields, {'index': True}, self.sql_delete_index)
++            self._delete_composed_index(
++                model, fields, {'index': True, 'unique': False}, self.sql_delete_index
++            )
+         # Created indexes
+         for fields in news.difference(olds):
+             self._create_index(model, fields, suffix='_idx')

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-12747.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+# django__django-12747
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+--- a/django/db/models/deletion.py
++++ b/django/db/models/deletion.py
+@@ -408,6 +408,8 @@ class Collector:
+                         sender=model, origin=self.origin,
+                     )
+ 
++        # Filter out zero counts from deleted_counter for consistency
++        deleted_counter = {key: count for key, count in deleted_counter.items() if count}
+         return sum(deleted_counter.values()), dict(deleted_counter)
+ 
+     def related_objects(self, related_model, related_fields, objs):

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-12856.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# django__django-12856
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+Based on the architect's analysis and my knowledge of Django's codebase, I'll generate the patch. The issue is that `_check_constraints()` doesn't validate that fields in `UniqueConstraint` exist. The fix involves importing `UniqueConstraint` and adding field validation similar to what `unique_together` does.
+
+```
+--- a/django/db/models/base.py
++++ b/django/db/models/base.py
+@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ from django.db.models.fields.related import (
+     ForeignObjectRel, OneToOneField, lazy_related_operation, resolve_relation,
+ )
+ from django.db.models.functions import Coalesce
++from django.db.models.constraints import UniqueConstraint
+ from django.db.models.manager import Manager
+ from django.db.models.options import Options
+ from django.db.models.query import Q
+@@ -1953,6 +1954,16 @@ class Model(metaclass=ModelBase):
+     @classmethod
+     def _check_constraints(cls, databases):
+         errors = []
++        for constraint in cls._meta.constraints:
++            if isinstance(constraint, UniqueConstraint) and constraint.fields:
++                errors.extend(
++                    cls._check_local_fields(
++                        constraint.fields,
++                        "constraints",
++                    )
++                )
++        return errors
++
+         for db in databases:
+             if not router.allow_migrate_model(db, cls):
+                 continue
+```
+
+Wait, I need to reconsider this. The method `_check_constraints` already has content checking database features. The field validation should be added before the database-specific checks, and it shouldn't return early. Let me revise:
+
+```
+--- a/django/db/models/base.py
++++ b/django/db/models/base.py
+@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ from django.db.models.fields.related import (
+     ForeignObjectRel, OneToOneField, lazy_related_operation, resolve_relation,
+ )
+ from django.db.models.functions import Coalesce
++from django.db.models.constraints import UniqueConstraint
+ from django.db.models.manager import Manager
+ from django.db.models.options import Options
+ from django.db.models.query import Q
+@@ -1953,6 +1954,11 @@ class Model(metaclass=ModelBase):
+     @classmethod
+     def _check_constraints(cls, databases):
+         errors = []
++        for constraint in cls._meta.constraints:
++            if isinstance(constraint, UniqueConstraint) and constraint.fields:
++                errors.extend(
++                    cls._check_local_fields(constraint.fields, "constraints")
++                )
+         for db in databases:
+             if not router.allow_migrate_model(db, cls):
+                 continue
+```

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-12908.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+# django__django-12908
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase and the issue description, I can generate the appropriate patch. The `distinct()` method in Django's QuerySet class needs to check if a combinator (union/intersection/difference) is set and raise a `NotSupportedError` if so.
+
+```
+--- a/django/db/models/query.py
++++ b/django/db/models/query.py
+@@ -1176,6 +1176,10 @@ class QuerySet:
+ 
+     def distinct(self, *field_names):
+         """Return a new QuerySet instance that will select only distinct results."""
++        if self.query.combinator:
++            raise NotSupportedError(
++                'Calling distinct() after %s() is not supported.' % self.query.combinator
++            )
+         assert not self.query.is_sliced, \
+             "Cannot call distinct() after .distinct() or .order_by()[:n] (slicing)."
+         obj = self._chain()
+```

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-12915.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+# django__django-12915
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+--- a/django/contrib/staticfiles/handlers.py
++++ b/django/contrib/staticfiles/handlers.py
+@@ -43,6 +43,11 @@ class StaticFilesHandlerMixin:
+             return self.serve(request)
+         return super().get_response(request)
+ 
++    async def get_response_async(self, request):
++        if self._should_handle(request.path):
++            return self.serve(request)
++        return await super().get_response_async(request)
++
+ 
+ class StaticFilesHandler(StaticFilesHandlerMixin, WSGIHandler):
+     """

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-12983.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+# django__django-12983
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+--- a/django/utils/text.py
++++ b/django/utils/text.py
+@@ -393,11 +393,13 @@ def slugify(value, allow_unicode=False):
+     Convert to ASCII if 'allow_unicode' is False. Convert spaces to hyphens.
+     Remove characters that aren't alphanumerics, underscores, or hyphens.
+     Convert to lowercase. Also strip leading and trailing whitespace.
++    Strip leading and trailing dashes and underscores.
+     """
+     value = str(value)
+     if allow_unicode:
+         value = unicodedata.normalize('NFKC', value)
+     else:
+         value = unicodedata.normalize('NFKD', value).encode('ascii', 'ignore').decode('ascii')
+     value = re.sub(r'[^\w\s-]', '', value.lower()).strip()
+-    return re.sub(r'[-\s]+', '-', value)
++    value = re.sub(r'[-\s]+', '-', value)
++    return value.strip('-_')

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-13028.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+# django__django-13028
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+--- a/django/db/models/sql/query.py
++++ b/django/db/models/sql/query.py
+@@ -1125,7 +1125,10 @@ class Query(BaseExpression):
+ 
+     def check_filterable(self, expression):
+         """Raise an error if expression cannot be used in a WHERE clause."""
+-        if not getattr(expression, 'filterable', True):
++        if (
++            hasattr(expression, 'resolve_expression') and
++            not getattr(expression, 'filterable', True)
++        ):
+             raise NotSupportedError(
+                 expression.__class__.__name__ + ' is disallowed in the filter '
+                 'clause.'

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-13033.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+# django__django-13033
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+Based on the architect's analysis, I can generate the patch. The issue is in `django/db/models/sql/compiler.py` around line 727 where the comparison `getattr(field, 'attname', None) != name` should use `pieces[-1]` instead of `name` to correctly identify when ordering by an FK's `_id` attribute.
+
+--- a/django/db/models/sql/compiler.py
++++ b/django/db/models/sql/compiler.py
+@@ -724,7 +724,7 @@
+                     # If the field is a foreign key, ordering by the foreign
+                     # key's `_id` attribute (attname) should not add the
+                     # related model's ordering.
+-                    if getattr(field, 'attname', None) != name:
++                    if getattr(field, 'attname', None) != pieces[-1]:
+                         order = self.query.standard_ordering and field.rel.get_related_field().model._meta.ordering and field.rel.get_related_field().model._meta.ordering[0] or ordering

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-13158.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+# django__django-13158
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+--- a/django/db/models/query.py
++++ b/django/db/models/query.py
+@@ -912,6 +912,8 @@ class QuerySet:
+ 
+     def none(self):
+         """Return an empty QuerySet."""
++        self.query.combinator = None
++        self.query.combined_queries = ()
+         clone = self._chain()
+         clone.query.set_empty()
+         return clone

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-13220.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+# django__django-13220
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+This is a Django repository issue, but the Django codebase isn't in this directory. Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase, I'll generate the patch for the `django/core/exceptions.py` file which contains the `ValidationError` class.
+
+```
+--- a/django/core/exceptions.py
++++ b/django/core/exceptions.py
+@@ -182,3 +182,56 @@ class ValidationError(Exception):
+             return repr(self.message)
+         return repr(self.messages)
+ 
++    def __eq__(self, other):
++        if not isinstance(other, ValidationError):
++            return NotImplemented
++
++        # Helper function to make a value hashable for comparison
++        def make_hashable(value):
++            if isinstance(value, dict):
++                return frozenset(
++                    (k, make_hashable(v)) for k, v in value.items()
++                )
++            elif isinstance(value, list):
++                return frozenset(make_hashable(item) for item in value)
++            else:
++                return value
++
++        # Compare error_dict if both have it
++        if hasattr(self, 'error_dict') and hasattr(other, 'error_dict'):
++            # Convert dict values to frozensets for order-independent comparison
++            self_dict = {}
++            other_dict = {}
++            for key, value in self.error_dict.items():
++                self_dict[key] = frozenset(make_hashable(v) for v in value)
++            for key, value in other.error_dict.items():
++                other_dict[key] = frozenset(make_hashable(v) for v in value)
++            return self_dict == other_dict
++        elif hasattr(self, 'error_dict') or hasattr(other, 'error_dict'):
++            return False
++
++        # Compare error_list - order independent
++        if hasattr(self, 'error_list') and hasattr(other, 'error_list'):
++            return (
++                frozenset(make_hashable(e) for e in self.error_list) ==
++                frozenset(make_hashable(e) for e in other.error_list)
++            )
++
++        return False
++
++    def __ne__(self, other):
++        result = self.__eq__(other)
++        if result is NotImplemented:
++            return result
++        return not result
++
++    def __hash__(self):
++        if hasattr(self, 'message'):
++            return hash((self.message, self.code, make_hashable(self.params) if self.params else None))
++        if hasattr(self, 'error_dict'):
++            return hash(frozenset(self.error_dict.keys()))
++        if hasattr(self, 'error_list'):
++            return hash(tuple(sorted(str(e) for e in self.error_list)))
++        return hash(id(self))
+```
+
+Wait, there's an issue with `__hash__` referencing `make_hashable` which is defined inside `__eq__`. Let me provide a corrected patch:
+
+--- a/django/core/exceptions.py
++++ b/django/core/exceptions.py
+@@ -182,3 +182,59 @@ class ValidationError(Exception):
+             return repr(self.message)
+         return repr(self.messages)
+ 
++    def __eq__(self, other):
++        if not isinstance(other, ValidationError):
++            return NotImplemented
++
++        # Helper function to make a value hashable for comparison
++        def make_hashable(value):
++            if isinstance(value, dict):
++                return frozenset(
++                    (k, make_hashable(v)) for k, v in value.items()
++                )
++            elif isinstance(value, list):
++                return frozenset(make_hashable(item) for item in value)
++            else:
++                return value
++
++        # Compare error_dict if both have it
++        if hasattr(self, 'error_dict') and hasattr(other, 'error_dict'):
++            # Convert dict values to frozensets for order-independent comparison
++            self_dict = {}
++            other_dict = {}
++            for key, value in self.error_dict.items():
++                self_dict[key] = frozenset(make_hashable(v) for v in value)
++            for key, value in other.error_dict.items():
++                other_dict[key] = frozenset(make_hashable(v) for v in value)
++            return self_dict == other_dict
++        elif hasattr(self, 'error_dict') or hasattr(other, 'error_dict'):
++            return False
++
++        # Compare error_list - order independent
++        if hasattr(self, 'error_list') and hasattr(other, 'error_list'):
++            return (
++                frozenset(make_hashable(e) for e in self.error_list) ==
++                frozenset(make_hashable(e) for e in other.error_list)
++            )
++
++        return False
++
++    def __ne__(self, other):
++        result = self.__eq__(other)
++        if result is NotImplemented:
++            return result
++        return not result
++
++    def __hash__(self):
++        # ValidationError is mutable, so we make it unhashable
++        # This is consistent with the default behavior when __eq__ is defined
++        # and __hash__ is not explicitly set to a non-None value.
++        # However, since Exception base class has __hash__, we need to
++        # explicitly disable it.
++        raise TypeError(
++            "unhashable type: 'ValidationError'"
++        )

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-13230.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+# django__django-13230
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+--- a/django/contrib/syndication/views.py
++++ b/django/contrib/syndication/views.py
+@@ -89,6 +89,9 @@ class Feed:
+     def item_pubdate(self, item):
+         return None
+ 
++    def item_comments(self, item):
++        return None
++
+     def item_extra_kwargs(self, item):
+         """
+         Return an extra keyword arguments dictionary that is used with
+@@ -171,6 +174,7 @@ class Feed:
+             author_email=author_email,
+             author_link=author_link,
+             categories=self._get_dynamic_attr("item_categories", item),
++            comments=self._get_dynamic_attr("item_comments", item),
+             item_copyright=self._get_dynamic_attr("item_copyright", item),
+             **self.item_extra_kwargs(item),
+         )

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-13265.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+# django__django-13265
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+Based on my knowledge of Django's migration autodetector, I can generate the patch. The issue is that `AlterOrderWithRespectTo` creates the `_order` field, but `AddIndex` operations that reference `_order` are being generated before it. The fix needs to ensure proper dependency ordering.
+
+```
+--- a/django/db/migrations/autodetector.py
++++ b/django/db/migrations/autodetector.py
+@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
++import re
+ from django.conf import settings
+ from django.db import models
+ from django.db.migrations import operations
+@@ -231,6 +232,21 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
+                             ),
+                         )
+                     )
++                # Depend on AlterOrderWithRespectTo if the index contains _order
++                if any(field_name == '_order' or field_name.lstrip('-') == '_order' for field_name in index.fields):
++                    self.add_dependency(
++                        op,
++                        (app_label, model_name, None, 'order_wrt_changed'),
++                    )
++                    # Also add dependency for the model itself since _order
++                    # is created by order_with_respect_to
++                    for model_state in self.to_state.models.get((app_label, model_name), []):
++                        pass  # Model existence is already handled above
+         self.add_operation(
+             app_label,
+             operations.AddIndex(
+@@ -1081,6 +1097,8 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
+                     (app_label, model_name, order_with_respect_to, True),
+                     (app_label, model_name, None, True),
+                 )
++            # Provide order_wrt_changed dependency for indexes on _order
++            self._add_dependencies_for_order_wrt(app_label, model_name)
+         self.add_operation(
+             app_label,
+             operations.AlterOrderWithRespectTo(
+```
+
+Let me reconsider the Django codebase structure and provide a correct patch:
+
+--- a/django/db/migrations/autodetector.py
++++ b/django/db/migrations/autodetector.py
+@@ -1040,6 +1040,19 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
+                 ),
+                 dependencies=dependencies,
+             )
++            # Add dependency for indexes that reference the _order field.
++            # The _order field is created by AlterOrderWithRespectTo, so any
++            # AddIndex operations that include _order must depend on this operation.
++            for (idx_app_label, idx_model_name), alt_indexes in self.altered_indexes.items():
++                if idx_app_label == app_label and idx_model_name == model_name:
++                    for index in alt_indexes.get('added_indexes', []):
++                        if '_order' in index.fields or any(
++                            f.lstrip('-') == '_order' for f in index.fields
++                        ):
++                            self.add_dependency(
++                                (app_label, model_name, index.name, 'add_index'),
++                                (app_label, model_name, None, 'order_wrt_changed'),
++                            )
+ 
+     def generate_altered_db_table(self):
+         models_to_check = self.kept_model_keys.union(
+
+Actually, let me provide the correct fix based on how Django's autodetector actually works with dependencies:
+
+--- a/django/db/migrations/autodetector.py
++++ b/django/db/migrations/autodetector.py
+@@ -226,6 +226,15 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
+                     )
+                 for index in indexes:
+                     self.add_operation(
+                         app_label,
+                         operations.AddIndex(
+                             model_name=model_name,
+                             index=index,
+                         ),
++                        dependencies=[
++                            (app_label, model_name, None, "order_wrt_changed")
++                        ] if any(
++                            f == '_order' or f.lstrip('-') == '_order'
++                            for f in index.fields
++                        ) else [],
+                     )

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-13315.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+# django__django-13315
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+--- a/django/db/models/fields/related.py
++++ b/django/db/models/fields/related.py
+@@ -1055,6 +1055,10 @@ class ForeignKey(ForeignObject):
+             "queryset": self.remote_field.model._default_manager.using(using),
+             "to_field_name": self.remote_field.field_name,
+         }
++        if self.remote_field.limit_choices_to:
++            # Use distinct() to avoid duplicate options when limit_choices_to
++            # involves a join that can multiply rows.
++            defaults["queryset"] = defaults["queryset"].distinct()
+         defaults.update(kwargs)
+         return super().formfield(**defaults)

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-13321.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+# django__django-13321
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+Based on the architect's analysis and the traceback, I can generate the patch. The issue is in `django/contrib/sessions/backends/base.py` where the `_legacy_decode()` method doesn't handle `binascii.Error` when calling `base64.b64decode()`.
+
+```
+--- a/django/contrib/sessions/backends/base.py
++++ b/django/contrib/sessions/backends/base.py
+@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
++import binascii
+ import base64
+ import hashlib
+ import logging
+@@ -123,7 +124,12 @@ class SessionBase:
+             return self._legacy_decode(session_data)
+ 
+     def _legacy_decode(self, session_data):
+-        encoded_data = base64.b64decode(session_data.encode('ascii'))
++        try:
++            encoded_data = base64.b64decode(session_data.encode('ascii'))
++        except binascii.Error:
++            # Invalid base64 data
++            logger.warning('Session data corrupted')
++            return {}
+         # could produce ValueError if there is no ':'
+         hash, serialized = encoded_data.split(b':', 1)
+         expected_hash = self._hash(serialized)
+```